Time Magazine Person of the Year: Mark Zuckerberg

engine

2:44 pm on Dec 15, 2010 (gmt 0)

Time Magazine Person of the Year: Mark Zuckerberg

For connecting more than half a billion people and mapping the social relations among them; for creating a new system of exchanging information; and for changing how we all live our lives, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg is TIME's 2010 Person of the Year. [time.com...]

StoutFiles

12:45 am on Dec 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

can we stop saying "500 million users". It's "500 million accounts"...very different thing.

As soon as people stop saying 500,000 YouTube views as 500,000 different people watched this video.

weeks

3:21 am on Dec 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

Think about this. Time's Person of tne Year is the most successful webmaster of tne year.

I keep telling you folks: This internet thing, it's going to be big.

iamlost

6:28 am on Dec 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

I keep telling you folks: This internet thing, it's going to be big.

Hits, it's all about the hits...

Given this years's ~35% circulation drop I suspect that Time has about run out...

rjwmotor

6:37 am on Dec 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

Betty White said it best..."Now that I know what facebook is...I think it's a huge waste of time!" ;)

Good way to get ESTABLISHED brands more brand awareness in a different way, but fail to see how the average ecommerce site is going to achieve worthwhile conver$ions. People on FB are "connecting" and "socializing"; generally not looking to buy stuff.

anshul

8:24 am on Dec 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

One bad thing about Facebook is it has too much discrete human intervention.. it should be rather driven by intelligent machines.

It is awesome or even mystery.. how it became so much popular.. why they anyone until him never thought of offering full-fledged social-networking? Or many of people thought for it but never putted so much massive and serious efforts about it!

grandpa

1:55 pm on Dec 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

Believe or don't believe. Your choice.

Since no one else had said it yet, "Congratulations Mark"

StoutFiles

7:53 pm on Dec 18, 2010 (gmt 0)

Think about this. Time's Person of tne Year is the most successful webmaster of tne year.

...assuming we ignore Assange.

By the way, how many people still subscribe to Time?

weeks

12:42 am on Dec 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

...assuming we ignore Assange.

OK, Assange--who many believe should have received the "honor" instead--is a successful webmaster as well. So, don't ignore it and the point is the same.

By the way, how many people still subscribe to Time?

A measure of.. what? Nothing. It was almost oddball distinction before and remains so. But, your points, taken together, make my point: The web continues to hold opportunity for innovation.

jecasc

8:01 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

Something from Saturday Night Live. Julian Assange Interrupts SNL To Explain Why He Should Be Time’s Person Of The Year: [videos.mediaite.com...]

What are the differences between Marc Zuckerberg and me. Let's take a look: I give you private information of corporations for free. And I am a villain. Marc Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money. And he is man of the year.

StoutFiles

8:14 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

OK, Assange--who many believe should have received the "honor" instead--is a successful webmaster as well. So, don't ignore it and the point is the same.

A reader poll gave Assange 80% of the vote. He was the real person of the year, but TIME gave it to someone who's doesn't have a negative aura around him, which shows how far TIME has fallen. I mean, Hitler won the award at one point. Should we give it to the guy who continues to run his social website better than MySpace or the guy who, just this year, has the world's govt's flipping out about their data?

A measure of.. what? Nothing. It was almost oddball distinction before and remains so. But, your points, taken together, make my point: The web continues to hold opportunity for innovation.

It means that TIME seems to have discovered Facebook when the movie came out. My grandma discovered Facebook before TIME did. "Oh, there's a website called Facebook and has HOW many members? This internet thing might be huge!"

Zuckerberg was a bigger deal last year, and the year before. It means that TIME is so behind the times that their "award" is meaningless.

[edited by: StoutFiles at 8:18 pm (utc) on Dec 20, 2010]

weeks

8:18 pm on Dec 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

Zuckerberg was a bigger deal last year, and the year before. It means that TIME is so behind the times that their "award" is meaningless.

I was in the car with some friends listening to a radio show called "Wait, Wait, don't tell me" this weekend and this is the joke they made: Zuckerberg was person of the year for 2006."

We actually agree, I think. Time's decision was made on who would sell the most magazines, not who was the person who actually most impacted the world this year.

rjwmotor

6:07 am on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Assange was a hacker. Not sure but I thought most people aren't very fond of hackers. B/c he's releasing a bunch of classified info he's the poster boy for free speech? The US will figure out a way to bring this guy up on charges and I say good--throw away the key too. The last thing that guy deserves is person of the year(even if it doesn't mean much anymore). That being said Zuck doesn't deserve it either.

weeks

1:37 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Assange was a hacker. Not sure but I thought most people aren't very fond of hackers.

It's a common and reasonable assumption that Time's Person of the Year is an honor for useful and good works. It's not. The title goes to the person the editors say was most annoying during the year. (Oh, OK,... it goes to the person with the biggest social or news impact, for good or for bad, during the year.)

MichaelEdits

2:01 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Is Facebook really the most impactful event of the year?

(I know, "impactful" is the kind of word I edit out of documents all day long. Forgive me. I blame Facebook's impact.)

StoutFiles

2:48 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Is Facebook really the most impactful event of the year?

It's like when Scorsese won an Oscar for The Departed...it was mostly to make up for all the years he should have won. I'd say TIME magazine is making up for Zuckerburg not winning in the past while taking advantage of his extra popularity due to the movie.

MichaelEdits

3:08 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

I forgot about the movie! It's not at the theaters here in Hanoi, but I read in the Dilbert Blog that Scott Adams loves it. Okay, now I understand.